White paper a small step towards nuclear non-proliferation

There is no doubt that Australia continues to rely on the US nuclear umbrella for protection but the 2013 Defence white paper shows we are taking steps towards nuclear non-proliferation, writes Tanya Ogilvie-White.

The role that US nuclear weapons play in Australian strategic policy is given far less emphasis in the new Defence white paper.

While the 2009 document contained five paragraphs that directly addressed the issue of extended nuclear deterrence and extended nuclear reassurance in the Australian context, this white paper has only one.

It's an interesting paragraph, though, because it specifically limits Australian reliance on US nuclear weapons to circumstances in which Australia is threatened with a nuclear attack. This is a change from 2009, when US extended deterrence and security assurance were described in much broader terms as 'the best defence against WMD proliferation'.

This paper's reference to the 'continuing viability of extended deterrence under the alliance' reflects a more subtle but equally significant shift. The 2009 document spoke of the 'stable and reliable sense of assurance' that US nuclear weapons have provided Australia over the years, removing 'the need for Australia to consider more significant and expensive defence options'. It also explained that the viability of extended nuclear deterrence was dependent upon 'stable' nuclear deterrence remaining a feature of the international system. These references to 'stable nuclear deterrence' in the broader international context have gone, replaced with a much more precisely worded, Australia-specific exposition of the role of nuclear deterrence.

What accounts for this shift from a more expansive discussion to the narrower, more carefully defined one that we see today? The clue might be in the last few words of the paragraph, which emphasises Australia's strong support for ongoing efforts towards global nuclear disarmament. The 2009 white paper was blatantly at odds with the non-proliferation and disarmament advocacy role that Australia plays in the nuclear non-proliferation regime, where it's been pushing for a reduced role for nuclear weapons in military doctrines and force postures. The 2013 white paper seems to be much more sensitive to the glaring incompatibility of Australia's nuclear diplomacy and its defence thinking.

The release of the white paper coincided with the final day of a two-week nuclear conference that was held at the United Nations in Geneva. During the conference, known as the NPT PrepCom, the inconsistencies in Australia's approach to nuclear issues were highlighted on a number of occasions, leading observers to criticise the insincerity of Australia and other states that call loudly for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament while continuing to rely so heavily on US nuclear weapons in their defence and security policies.

In a working paper delivered at the PrepCom, Australia and a coalition of nine other states known as the Non-proliferation and Disarmament Initiative (Canada, Chile, Germany, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates) called for 'the total elimination of nuclear weapons in a transparent and irreversible manner'. They argued that one of the areas where progress is needed and currently feasible is in the reduction of the role played by nuclear weapons in military doctrines, security concepts and policies.

Yet officials in the Obama administration have admitted that opposition from some of these same allies encouraged them to abandon a 2012 proposal to reduce the role of nuclear weapons much further than had originally been planned under the US-Russia 2010 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and US Nuclear Posture Review. According to reports, the allies made it clear that they feared the proposed cuts would weaken US extended nuclear deterrence arrangements.

There is no doubt that Australia continues to rely on the US nuclear umbrella and hopes to do so for the foreseeable future. Indeed, the same day Australian diplomats were advocating for a reduced role for nuclear weapons at the close of the PrepCom in Geneva, the 2013 Defence white paper was pledging that 'as long as nuclear weapons exist, we rely on the nuclear forces of the United States to deter nuclear attack on Australia.' To many, this will be regarded as proof that DFAT and Defence are either insincere or talking different languages, confusing domestic and international audiences alike.

But a thorough comparison of the 2009 and 2013 Defence white papers reveals that, despite the accusations of insincerity and even hypocrisy, Australia has stepped back from some of its more strident pro-nuclear pronouncements of the past. Today's defence officials appear to be more conscious of the fundamental conflict at the heart of Australian strategic thinking: the contention that Australia - despite its status as a non-nuclear weapon state - has a right to rely on nuclear deterrence as long as nuclear weapons exist, while other states, many of them inhabiting much nastier neighbourhoods and facing serious adversaries, do not. Short of renouncing the US nuclear umbrella altogether or accepting nuclear proliferation as inevitable, there are very limited opportunities available to Australian Defence officials to try to resolve this conflict. Scaling back the language of nuclear reliance, while modest, is at least a step in the right direction.

A shorter version of this article appeared in The Strategist on May 3, 2013.

Dr Tanya Ogilvie-White is a Senior Analyst in International Security at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. The views expressed here are her own. View her full profile here.